linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] devpts: use dynamic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k21sepn0.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:23:31 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Stefan Lippers-Hollmann <s.l-h@....de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] devpts: use dynamic_dname() to generate proc name

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is my tested version of the patch.
>
> Can you please take my cleanups to devpts_ptmx_path() too?

Let met take a look.  

> Those 'goto err' statements are disgusting, when a plain 'return
> -ERRNO' works cleaner.

Yes those look like good cleanups.  I had tried to preserve the original
logic in devpts_ptmx_path from devpts_acquire to make it easier to
see if I had goofed.   But that out and out failed so cleanups
so the code is easier to read look like a very good thing.

> And that "struct file *filp = NULL;" is bogus - you added the NULL
> initialization because you mis-used "filp" early, and with that fixed
> it's just garbage.

Actually the NULL initialization is a hold over from the original
version of that function.  But I agree without it gcc could have
caught my use of the wrong variable, so removing it looks like a good
idea.

> Other than that, it looks fine to me.

Thanks.  I will respin and retest and see where things are at.

Eric